W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2016

Re: VOTE: Verifiable Claims Terminology

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:56:10 -0400
To: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>, public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <575C42AA.6060705@digitalbazaar.com>
On 06/11/2016 07:27 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
> It would appear to be so from the cat example that Dave gave (that
> unfortunately has been cut out of your reply), in which the cat has two
> different profiles but the same ID (because it refers to the same cat).
> I think this is the wrong design, because we have now created
> linkability between two separate profiles (or pseudonyms) that I might
> have sent to two different relying parties. By using a common ID for two
> different identity profiles we produce a correlation handle for the
> relying parties.

There are multiple use cases we want to support. One of them involves
the ability to share a common identity with multiple parties. That
doesn't mean that you *must* do this, it just means that you can.

There are also cases where you should be able to have the unlinkability
characteristics you mention, which can be implemented in a variety of
different ways. I believe a layered approach will work here. I will
reiterate though that the trust characteristics, disincentives for
fraud, and infrastructure needs can be much more complicated in the
unlinkable use cases.

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2016 16:56:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:53 UTC